|
this is where again value and price need to be realised as different measures.
golds bottom line value is ~$900. no one wants to sell below this because the cost of mining gold is higher then this. and years of buying gold has raised its current owners acquisition costs to also be over $900
same with bitcoin its bottomline support value is about $30k.
the premium (point no one wants to buy above) is gold:$2.5k and bitcoin $70k
the PRICE. of gold sits somewhere in the middle of $0.9k-$2.5k.. and yea the volatility of the ups and downs within this window where the price bounces up and down is the market sway of emotion.
but thats not to say gold has no underlying value either economic value or utility value
the PRICE. of bitcoin sits somewhere in the middle of $30k-$70k.. and yea the volatility of the ups and downs within this window where the PRICE bounces up and down is the market sway of emotion.
but thats not to say bitcoin has no underlying value either economic value or utility value
bitcoin has more utility than many crapcoins(utility) and also because its PoW instead of PoS, bitcoin has economic value.
i would agree your assertions of pure emotional sway of markets and things going to zero apply more to crap-PoS coins. but bitcoin is different to those. for many many reasons
what you need to realise is.. the store of VALUE (value) is not the current $43k. its store of VALUE (value) is $30k+
where at the moment the extra $13k is yes speculative emotional premium, speculating the store of VALUE(value) will eventually reach more then their early purchase of $43k
stop imagining the PRICE as an equal VALUE line. and realise there are differences.
EG milk, each week it can go up and down in price at a retail store.. in the UK we have it going from £1-£1.50($1.37-$2.06)
what is deemed as value to an end users is when its near to the £1($1.37). and when its premium its nearer the £1.50($2.06)
this by itself, this swing in current retail prices regularly is not enough to call milk a pyramid, your thinking: because a farmer sold it for £0.40 to a pasteurising factory, who sold it for £0.47 to a distribution centre/wholesaler who sold it for £0.57 to a retailer. who sold it to a customer for £1-£1.50
a pyramid is where when things are sold at the bottom the money moves up the levels.
EG customer pays retailer who then pays wholesaler who then pays pasteuriser who then pays farmer(in backward reward)
a pyramid is also from top down. 1 recruit 3 who recruits 9 who recruits 27
there is no 1 3 9 27 split of different people who benefit from a sale.
with anything sold in retail. its just money between buyer to seller.
and also, art is an asset..
art is not a commodity. nor a pyramid
seems. you are not yet willing to consider things.
you want to call bitcoin a pyramid (backward paying reward program scam)
you want to call bitcoin a ponzi (share investment treasury scam)
you want to call bitcoin a commodity (raw material used to make products)
you want to call bitcoin flaky art (asset)
can you atleast make your mind up on one?
|
|
|
|
again your trying to show the A<>B millisat payment and commitment by blending them into one bx of ascii art your ascii art of the bolts 2. is that -(1)-> -(2)-> -(3)-> is the LN millisat promise part simplified. YOUR (1)(2)(3) is the same three 1,2,9 (using the diagram in my last post)millisat payment promise updates between alice and bob.. the commitment in your ascii art (4) doesnt happen until after your ascii art (3) has happened (my diagram9) as for your other 2 boxes of text. that again is the commitment bits that happen secondary. again your confusing the a<>b stuff with the payment of a-b-c-d-e remember eric gives alice the payment_hash for the micropayment (millisat promise) with bob (not commitment) bob uses the payment_hash to carol for his micropayment (millisat promise) with carol (not commitment) carol uses the payment_hash to diana for her micropayment (millisat promise) with diana (not commitment) diana uses the payment_hash to eric for her micropayment (millisat promise) with eric (not commitment) eric then gives diana the payment_secret which she passes to carol who passes to bob who passes to alice payment_hash=erics pubkey (H) payment_secret=erics privkey (R) they all then update as success and then make the commitment whereby the commitments outputs = local_htlcpubkey remote_htlcpubkey dont confuse the micropayment millisat promise of erics cycle of H and R through ABCDE, with the commitment of just AB. because if you really think there is no ABCDE millisat micropayment temporary promise using H and R. and you think H and R are only used by commitments and only commitments exist. then erics H is going to be in AB's commitment which if AB broadcast such a commitment. then eric can spend the utxo put into his H using his R you need to realise the different parts and how an LN payment is different to a commitment. the LN millisat payments use erics H and R.. in your steps (123 of your ascii art first box)(129 my diagram) the commitments(45) uses AB keys AFTER (123your first ascii box)(129 my diagram) as you can see using my diagram in my last post at the LN PAYMENT(emphasis) alice gets erics H at 1. and needs to get erics(R) to complete at 9 if alice was to put erics H into a commitment and then broadcast it.. eric could use his R to redeem money to him meaning alice and bob get nothing. thats why LN payments are separate and another reason why they dont get broadcast. aswell as being in a format not understandable to bitcoin network. to prevent eric from scamming alice and bob. at (your ascii art step 4) the actual commitment creation stage. yes alice make a commitment using their own AB agreed keys, not erics key used in the LN payment millisat promise.
as for you saying in your post that you explained it already using your node logs 03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: peer_in WIRE_UPDATE_ADD_HTLC
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: NEW:: HTLC REMOTE 408 = RCVD_ADD_HTLC/SENT_ADD_HTLC
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: htlc added LOCAL: local 3828178009 remote 1171821991
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: -> local 3828178009 remote 1074154247
[...]
037659a0ac8eb3b8d0a720114efc861d3a940382dcfa1403746b4f8f6b2e8810ba-channeld-chan#29: Failed to add 1 remove 0 htlcs
037659a0ac8eb3b8d0a720114efc861d3a940382dcfa1403746b4f8f6b2e8810ba-channeld-chan#29: Adding HTLC 1126 amount=97653097msat cltv=716528 gave CHANNEL_ERR_CHANNEL_CAPACITY_EXCEEDED
03562bdcf00fe0cf44e8a491a8c9b26f31c4e45c9a88cdfd6a2f0f2550a304c73e-channeld-chan#85: FAIL:: HTLC REMOTE 408 = SENT_REMOVE_HTLC/RCVD_REMOVE_HTLC
please note this is not the commitment. but the LN payment. you can tell because it says to add "amount=97653097msat" and we all know a "bitcoin commitment" does not handle msats. so whats being signed. is not a bitcoin commitment but a msat based LN payment the confusion is your misunderstandings of commitments vs payment.. maybe because you have soo many buzzwords payments via "Hashed Time Locked Contracts" vs commitments payments via "Msat invoices" vs commitments payments vis "micropayment channel contracts" vs commitments your second and third code box of 'commitments' you numbered 1&2 are actually your ascii art(first box) 4 where they are only committed if the LN payment fails(HTLC-timeout) or succeeds(HTLC-success) .. oh and um one last thing when talking about payments in LN.. dont confuse the matter by using bolt2 (channel management) and instead use reference from bolt11 (invoice payment) |
|
|
|
.. im guessing he is going to offer a 'cloud mining' service...
I wonder how his words will encourage people to invest or something similar to it in regards with this cloud mining. And how it differs to typical scam cloud mining. well jack so far is just at the preliminary investigation stage. he has yet to even build 1 prototype asic, let alone scale production, let alone have sufficient stock to offer using different sale models(parts, complete product, remote renting) so too early to tell for sure which route he will concentrate on. the easiest ways to know if a cloud mining is genuine: 1. the income you get is just 1 taint away from a blockreward 2. the asic 'worker'/hashpower and pool total hash power is accountable and allotted to renters 3. physical proof of asic ownership (warehouse/farm walkthrough video) the easiest ways to know if a cloud mining is ponzi: 1. the income you get is just some coldstore coin from rent purchase transactions 2. there are more renters at xTHash each, than the pools hashrate combined 3. declines to physically prove asic ownership (never does a warehouse/farm walkthrough video) |
|
|
|
This logic is always moot, its like if i say i will start to hoard rocks, supply and demand the value is subjective someone is going to buy it at 100k. My rocks are like no other rocks. Does it looks like a sound logic to you ?
The fact that this behavior was anticipated this the very beginning, seen by satoshi hal finney and other since the very beginning show that its no different from any other market that existed before since market exists.
Either it takes off as a currency spent to buy good or it dies in the long run, or just become a niche for gamblers and crazy speculators spending their day on trading chart trying to figure when to enter and leave at the expanse of others in a null sum game.
bitcoin and golds value is not just 'its a currency or jewellery'. its value is also from its cost of acquisition if you could mine gold or pick up rocks for just $1 in your back yard. and anyone could do the same. no one would pay $2000 a ounce for it. the most they would pay is $2 premuim to avoid the sweat, dirt of getting their hands messy. because gold costs over $900 to mine. thats why people pay atleast $900. and no one is foolish to sell gold for less than $900. the reason why gold cant escape above a $2.5k ATH at the moment and bitcoin cant escape above a $69k ATH at the moment is because everyone on the planet can mine for less than a certain premium and so would stop buying at a certain peak because its cheaper/more convenient to mine. gold has a value window based on acquisition cost of $900-$2.5k, bitcoin has a value window of $30k-$70k yes if bitcoin becomes useless as a currency then the desire to maintain bitcoin will drop. miners will want to maintain(mine) something else. and slowly with only a few miners left getting high% of the reward for less effort. the costs come down and thus the value comes down. which is why having utility is important. but its the secondary to its underlying value(cost of acquisition). there is a relationship between utility (desire) and mining(supply). but the value(price) is more linked to the acquisition value range. And historically all currencies arose from some kind of commodity backing. Its not even the way its used but how its supposed to behave as a market.
The two kind of people i saw saying this model is ok are :
1. People seeing the pyramid scheme potential rubbing their hand seeing they are going to make millions as eraly adopter. As of today most of the post i see on this board are people still behaving as early investors in a pyramid scheme.
2. People who are more sound and rational saying that it doesnt make sense in the long run to use it this way, that early adopter can behave like this and it was more or less on purpose to give an incencitive to early adopters but the only way that make sense in the long term is the adoption as a currency with a dynamic roughly appraoching a commodity market.
Otherwise its only people playing hit and run with enter/exit strategy to extract a quick profit out of it which cannot last for ever and makes unusable as a currency which is the only way forward in the long run.
again you say "commodity" a commodity is a raw material used to create other products oil=fuel/plastic, beef=burgers/steak, wheat=bread/cereal gold is yes a commodity but its also an asset. gold sits on 2 markets. dont confuse golds mining/currency reserve/investment (asset class) with its jewellery/electronics(commodity class) bitcoin fits similarly to golds asset definition.. but bitcoin no way fits into golds commodity definition as for saying its a pyramid scheme(facepalm) well your listening to the wrong 2 people. whichever one calls it a pyramid scheme. stop listening. and instead learn: no one gets recurring income from the sell of bitcoin. there is no bunch of investors all depositing into a central pot that paying out monthly interest/dividends there is no 'team' of downstream or upstream lineage of investors getting paid by a downstream seller its not like when someone sells coin. he then has to pay 10% to his supervisor, and 8% to their supervisor who ever owns the coin and sells the coin keeps the funds for the sell. there is no pyramid 'sharing' of revenue structure in bitcoin. early adopters/hoarders (not selling) have no impact on the price because they are not the ones making offers. bitcoins price is only from those selling at the price they want to sell at and only they get the income of that sale |
|
|
|
|
when saying one of his idea's solves the issues of the delivery, setup, heat, dust, noise making it inconvenient for peoples homes.. im guessing he is going to offer a 'cloud mining' service... along with patent-less open source blueprints/designs/coding if people want to take his design of an asic and make their own asic.
years ago many ASIC manufacturers started very open. not just cloud hashing, but also selling asics, and also selling the chips stand alone so others can make their own asics. but lately due to headache and cost of building their own. most ended up just buying asics(farms) or cloud hashing(hobbyists)
|
|
|
|
|
nah.
overdrafts were seen as 'extra credit/debt' without the creditcard application form requirement. what you find is by limiting access to overdraft, causes those on low incomes to then apply for credit cards in tough times, to pay off unavoidable bills.
and then having a credit card with higher limits people end up getting into more debt(profit for bank) because people then tend to max out their limit thinking its 'free cash' to not worry about for months.
its like all economics.
if someones income is only say $1500. but they have payment demands/bills/lifestyle costs of $1700. they usually use a overdraft to pay the $200 excess, and try to recoup the next month.. by only spending 1300 on lifestyle and put $200 to zero the overdraft(not always possible)
but if banks only limit access to the $1500 income, people then go elsewhere to get hold of $200 to pay off unavoidable bills. and if the 'elsewhere' is offering another $1500 'on credit' people usually take the $1500 extra credit and buy silly things like luxuries thinking they can pay back $130 a month for the next year.. but never do because they are still only getting $1500 of income and still having $1700 bills. so each month the debt increases.
having a $200 overdraft 'credit' taken away and then offered a $1500 credit card. tempts people to 'spend' $1500 credit. instead of staying under the $200 'credit'(overdraft) allowance from previous years
|
|
|
|
you dont have to physically sleep in the apartment. just have a registered address
Because of the following lines, I have to respectfully disagree with you on that part: well unless they are going to send an agent to the apartment to do a daily check to make sure someone lives there. its not really a rule/law. its just a guide/hope it will add vibrancy. take other examples of state/government offering incentives for things just look at all the 'shell companies' that governments offer 0% tax to, if businesses register in these tax free zones. the business does not end up actually living/working/operating in these area's they just have a po box or registered address with mail forwarding to the actual HQ elsewhere.. its standard practice |
|
|
|
|
what you will start to see is any altcoin which has lasted a test of time and has some utility, will start to see ASIC's made fro them.
as for the other coins (crapcoins) they will die out as people shift their existing efficient gpu to the more long lasting/utility coins.
yes AMD can make alot more money by appeasing the miners by offering mining efficient asics. but that requires scaling up production to meet the demands of both gaming and mining industries. they seem to be preferring not to scale up to meet both industry neds and instead want to concentrate on purely appeasing the gaming industry demand by removing things that the mining industry want it for.
the main reason i could see them doing this. is because when mining, many 'overclock' or have GPU running 24/7 at high processing rates, which can kill a GPU quick. which can affect AMD's warranty replacement rate, causing AMD more costs.
|
|
|
|
People are making this out to be some kind of miracle, but it is not.
Consider the Powerball lottery. The odds of winning it are 1 in 300,000,000, yet somebody always seems to win. That's because of the number of people that enter.
It all comes down to math. So let's do the math.
Let's assume that there are only 100 solo miners, each with 120 TH/s. That's a total of 12 PH/s. The total hash rate is 180,000 PH/s, so the probability of one of these miners winning a block is 0.000067. That is quite low; however, there are 52560 blocks each year.
The probability of one of these solo miners winning at least one block in a year is 1-(1-0.000067)52560 = 3%.
It's low, but it is not a miracle. Furthermore, if we assume there are 1000 such miners, then the probability is so close to 1 that it would be a miracle if one of them didn't win a block.
again to emphasise. a CK solo pool is not actually solo.. its a pool. and in all pools the solved hash is always solved by 1 asic within the pool. no matter how the pool is described. the only difference of CK pool is that the asic in question gets 98% rather then sharing the reward between all asics in lottery analogy. ck pool and antpool are both names of lottery syndicates (groups of people buying lotto tickets where only one can win) if antpool has a winning ticket, he pays out 99% to all ticket buyers, the buyer of the winning ticket doesnt get 99% but a shared small %. and the others in the syndicates get the same small% even if their ticket was not a win. if ck pool wins, he pays out 98% to just the buyer of the winning ticket everyone else doesnt get a shared small % but in both cases. the lotto system runs by only 1 lotto ticket number wins per game. the CK 'solo TM is not true solo where an asic works outside of a pool and gets to form its own block headers of only its control and reward, |
|
|
|
1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws. This has become tiring... I've repeatedly mentioned that it's a game theory. You read and write only what's in your interest. Yeah, Lightning payments are just IOUs and LN is designed to destroy Bitcoin. Keep thinking that way, I give up. Now if you disagree there's no trust during the Lightning transactions, then everything you've said it's true. Including the analogy with the bank notes. However, I do agree it's trustless. i know you want to keep being adamant about the funding commitment and using it as a settlement in times of non-amicable LN session.. but thats just your ignorance not wanting to enter the discussion of LN PAYMENTS you know. the 'hop routing of millisats' A<>B<>C<>D<>E although you(A) have a funding or settlement commitment for you vs partner B.. there is no such final 'commitment' contract of you vs E(recipient of payment) during the payment.. ill EMPHASISE PAYMENT. it requires B,C,D,E to be online to pay E. E is not 'trustlessly' guaranteed to be paid when A<>B make a promise at the start of the pass the parcel game. or when E starts by giving a htlc public key to A at the start of the pass the parcel game alot of things can go wrong during an LN PAYMENT .. however on bitcoin. (the real bitcoin network not to be confused with altnets pretending to be), on bitcoin i can pay E direct and there is no need of any 'watchtower'/'punishment' need to be online.. or being online just to receive. or online just to initiate, or a way to take back funds after confirmation. or any of the other flaws. i know you only want to direct back to talking about the A<>B funding/punishment as a 'backup' protection. but your forgetting that LN PAYMENTS are usually outside of the A<>B 'game theory' because its actually a PAYMENT trying to succeed between A and E, again the A and E PAYMENT can fail for many reasons. EG delaying signing millisat promises of B<>C C<>D D<>E EG not passing the HTLC secret EG not being online EG not having liquidity call LN payments by any buzzword you like (onion-routed-payments)(HTLC invoices)(microchannel payments)(millisat promises)(hop payment) but atleast learn the difference between the LN payment promise of say A to E vs the 'commitment of A<>B just stop trying to talk about the A<>B funding commitment just to avoid the game theory of LN payments to E. oh and by the way. B does not update the A<>B 'commitment'. until after E promise is signed, which then pases to D, which then passes to C, which then passes to B in short: (alice paying eric)  B doesnt get to update a commitment until point 9, not point 2 B cannot spend(settle) a 'payment' until point 9 has completed (A wont sign a commitment until it receives R(private key)) lots of things can go wrong between 1-9 there is alot of permissions required and trust and amicable 'hopes' for payment success needed during 1-9 .. by the way, A,>B do not create a 'commitment' at 2 using H(erics public key) in a commitment. because A<>B know eric has the privatekey(R) and if A or B broadcast a commitment with H, eric can jump in and send funds to where he likes using R. and at point 6 and 7 diana and carol also have the private key(R).. so they can also 'spend' the A<>B.. if A<>B were to 'commit' using H as a output LN payments are IOU promises measured in millisats that contain the H, but not in the format of a bitcoin transaction. it wont succeed in being accepted by the bitcoin network for many reasons of not being a bitcoin transaction, as its a different format specific to LN and only understood within LN in short 1-8 are not bitcoin transactions. Bob cant just receive R at 8 and broadcast without doing 9. because 1-8 are millisat measured promises, and only becomes a 'commitment(requiring permission via 2 signatures) after point 9. .. isnt it just funny that out of the multiple pages i have been the only one using references to back up my 'opinion'.. yet others opinion is backed up foolishly with 'i think its how it works so you are wrong because its not what i think'(lacking evidence, references) |
|
|
|
|
if you want to get technical about the technical. its not actually 50 btc (unit of 50) its not 50*coin. where coin =1btc
its actually where coin=100,000,000
coin is measured in sats. not in whole bitcoin.
if you took the 'values' from block data and transaction data in raw form and convert them from byte to decimal. the numbers are in sat units. not whole bitcoin numbers.
so technically there is no btc anywhere in block or transaction data. only sats..
yep no btc is found on the blockchain. just sat units
where by math then bunches them up into 'coin' of 100,000,000 units to be called a btc at GUI level (software user interface). not at raw data level of the blockchain
so there is infact going to be UNDER
2,099,999,997,690,000 sats
..
but if you want to talk about the GUI representation. btc in whole units would display as
20,999,999.97 which rounds to 21mill
|
|
|
|
|
funny part is bitcoin. the actual and only network called bitcoin(not to be confused with altnets)... bitcoin does not require the recipient to be online. nor does it need to pay middlemen to route and have liquidity and be online.
i can send coin to any address whether they are online or not and they will have it confirmed to them even if they dont look or check or ask for it.
i can wire transfer money to others bank account without them needing to be at their bank to accept it.
i can mail bank notes, gold, or other rare metals to people without them having to ask for it.
LN requires a co-signed agreement. and even after the agreement they need to be online to make sure the other party doesnt cheat.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin LN will destroy the BTC network, what will happen next?
same as what happened to golds old 19th century medium of exchange status, replaced by bank notes.. and now bank notes being swapped for brass, nickel and copper coins. .. no one uses gold as a medium of exchange anymore those wanting LN dont want bitcoin to be a medium of exchange (daily activity currency between the common people) they want it as a 'reserve' currency for the settlement by custodians, payment services, 'hub managers'(AKA banks) what needs to happen is BITCOIN needs to scale to keep people using the bitcoin network and maintain it regularly/daily. not be shunned away to another network being told to prune their wallet software and not maintain the blockchain, and not use bitcoin network regularly. |
|
|
|
1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners. Yeah, and Bitcoin is just a currency. Lightning allows these agreements to happen in a trustless way and that's how it distinguishes itself from every other debt-based payment system. At this point I have a feeling that I need to quote the following; If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. 3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments It's a 2-of-2 co-signing agreement, but you both have a pre-signed Bitcoin transaction if you don't cooperate. Same goes for connectivity. 4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin You're the only person in this room who thinks I hate Bitcoin. 1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws. seems you have not even looked at the issues cypherpunks had with their p2p money before blockchians existed. 3. you are yet again confusing the locked bitcoin vs the LN payments. please try to learn the difference, it will help you with your day to day use of LN. im not stating you personally shouldnt use LN im saying you should learn what LN actually does and how it actually works to make your life better. heck it might even give you some insight on a better PR campaign 4. you just stated you dont want to go back to using bitcoin because of the fees and confirmation time ill quote you AGAIN I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. yes bank notes are faster and cheaper to move around compared to gold.. still doesnt make a bank note goldL2 |
|
|
|
I'm also replying to @philipma1957: There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not. The intelligent technology of Lightning doesn't care what the majority wants. It's something that runs on top of Bitcoin, without anyone's permission and approval. Even if lots of users didn't want it, they could do nothing to prevent it. There'll always be some who find it satisfactory. As for if it's damaging in the long term: I strongly disagree. It's what I call the solution to scaling. I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. I state the exact opposite: If we don't have Lightning, some shitcoins with larger blocks will find their opportunities to distinguish. The Lightning Network protects the significance of the monetary policy of Bitcoin. as you can see. blackhatcoiner is showing the advert campaign. 1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners. - cypherpunks had this 'tech' before 2008 and it didnt work for them. they found blockchains as the solution to 'channels' 2. it doesnt run ontop of bitcoin. much like a printer does not run on the internet. even if 2 middle PC software link locally - as bitcoin code has no LN peer connection stuff. and LN can still peer connect without bitcoin. 3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments. - dont confuse LN 'instant payments' requiring partner amicable permission. vs bitcoin settlements exiting LN 4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin. and dont want to return to using bitcoins 10min confirms and fee's, because you only want to use pico-measured unit fees and 'instant'(when online and amicable and liquid) 5. did bank notes protect the significance of gold as a medium of exchange? or did it replace it as a medium of exchange once bank note lovers decided not to take back their gold because of the slowness and expense of gold transfers. gotta laugh though. blackhatcoiner doesnt want bitcoin to scale itself to make less transaction bottlenecks and also make transactions cheaper on bitcoin. but then says LN is the bitcoin scaling solution.. then cries how he doesnt want to go back to bitcoin because of its implied restrictions blackhatcoiner is stuck in a loop.. doesnt want bitcoin to change, wants another network to avoid bitcoin problems because bitcoin hasnt changed. last funny part, admitting he doesnt want to return to the bitcoin network to exit LN, means.. yep he will exit LN by atomic swapping to a shitcoin with cheap fee's and less confirmation bottlenecks. and on a serious note. if he thinks that getting people off a train, to use a bus, is how he sees it as a solution to scaling trains. he is missing logic by a few million miles. if no one uses a train daily, people stop maintaining trains, and stop buying train tickets |
|
|
|
If bans news come from big countries like China, USA, Russia the market will be affected more but only in short term.
Short term? A ban from the US? Do you even realize what the implications of such ban will be? Look at the companies holding bitcoins, look at the public traded mining companies, hashrate distribution, number of ATMs, a number of both nodes and LN nodes, remember every damn crypto card uses either Visa or Mastercard, a complete ban from the US? It's going to be a massacre. you do remember the NY ban and then the bit licence era right.. yep it already happened and so no drama now. |
|
|
|
|
generally right now those shouting "its worth $100k" are the ones that bought at $50k and they want 2x in the future. so speculate it as valued at that $100k now, because they are in a rush to get their profit.
however the actual value window right now is between $30k-$70k
everyone on the planet even home hobby miners could mine for less than $70k/coin right now so there is not much need/pressure to buy for more then this.
as things progress in mining costs and such, this window will rise, eventually $100k will fit inside the value window. but not right now.
so those speculating that bitcoin IS worth $100k are just speaking too soon, too greedily and too eagerly
|
|
|
|
|
as mentioned with every other country, including america,
a country cannot offer licences, permits regulation of a product unless it first prohibits its use. then it gains legal control to punish those who use it. then then allows them to offer special provisions of using it (licences/regulations) for those that do want to use it.
this means a country banning a crypto is also the first step to allowing crypto(in a regulated system)
|
|
|
|
|
whilst holding coin.. never look at ATH. they never last long.
instead only look at the supported lows.
look at the increments of the new periodic lows as a guide to valuing your coin.
anything above these lows is "bonus"
EG i bought coin at $6 in 2012.. yet:
i dont view it now as "being worth upto $69k recently"
i do view it now as "valued at atleast $29k recently"
shift your mindset to the lows and you will start to appreciate VALUE. and start to measure investments based on IF the PRICE is near VALUE or at a premium(ATH)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
